Audit committee support for auditors: The effects of materiality justification and accounting precision

Journal of Accounting and Public Policy

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 175-199

  DeZoort, F Todd ^a   Hermanson, Dana R ^b   Houston, Richard W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

^b KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037338832     PISSN: 02784254     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0278-4254(03)00007-3     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abdolmohammadi, M.J., Levy, E.S., 1992. Audit committee members' perceptions of their responsibility. Internal Auditing 8 (Summer), 53-63.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), 1983. Statement on Auditing Standards no. 47, Audit risk and materiality in conducting an audit. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York.
3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), 1988a. Statement on Auditing Standards no. 57, Auditing accounting estimates. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York.
4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), 1988b. Statement on Auditing Standards no. 61, Communication with audit committees. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York.
5. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), 1999a. Statement on Auditing Standards no. 89, Audit adjustments. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York.
6. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), 1999b. Statement on Auditing Standards no. 90, Audit committee communications. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York.
7. Anderson, U.L., Koonce, L., Marchant, G., 1994. The effects of source-competence information and its timing on auditors' performance of analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 13 (1), 137-148.
8. Arthur Andersen, 1998. Global Best Practices for Audit Committees. Arthur Andersen, Chicago.
9. Baron, J., 2000. Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
10. Barr, S., 1999. Watchdogs or lapdogs? CFO Magazine (May). Available from .
11. Bauman, W.S., Miller, R.E., 1997. Investor expectations and the performance of value stocks versus growth stocks. Journal of Portfolio Management 23 (Spring), 57-68.
12. Beasley, M.S., Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, D.R., 1999. Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1987-1997, An Analysis of US Public Companies. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, New York.
13. Big Five Audit Materiality Task Force (MTF), 1998. Status Report and Initial Recommendations. Available from .
14. Bitner, L.N., Dolan, R., 1998. Does smoothing earnings add value? Management Accounting 80 (10), 44-47.
15. Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees (BRC), 1999. Report and Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees. New York Stock Exchange and National Association of Securities Dealers, New York.
16. Braiotta Jr., L., 1986. Audit committees: an international survey. The Corporate Board 7 (3), 18-23.
17. Braun, K.W., 2001. The disposition of audit-detected misstatements: an examination of risk and reward factors and aggregation effects. Contemporary Accounting Research 18 (1), 71-100.
18. Burnstein, E., Vinokur, A., 1977. Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13, 315-322.
19. Byrne, J., 2002. Restoring trust in corporate America. Business Week (June 24), 30-35.
20. Conover, W.J., 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
21. DeZoort, F.T., 1997. An investigation of audit committees' oversight responsibilities. Abacus (September), 208-227.
22. DeZoort, F.T., 1998. An analysis of experience effects on audit committee members' oversight judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23 (1), 1-22.
23. DeZoort, F.T., Salterio, S., 2001. The effects of corporate governance experience, financial reporting and audit knowledge on audit committee members' judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 20 (2), 31-47.
24. Dillman, D.A., 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
25. Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S., 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.
26. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), 1980. Qualitative characteristics of accounting information, Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts no. 2. Financial Accounting Standards Board, Stamford, CT.
27. Friestad, M., Wright, P., 1994. The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research 21, 1-31.
28. General Accounting Office (GAO), 1996. The accounting profession. Major issues: progress and concerns. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
29. Gibbins, M., Salterio, S., Webb, A., 2001. Evidence about auditor-client management negotiation concerning clients' financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 39 (3), 535-563.
30. Green, D.L., 1994. Canadian audit committees and their contribution to corporate governance. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 3, 135-151.
31. Kalbers, L.P., Fogarty, T.J., 1993. Audit committee effectiveness: an empirical investigation of the contribution of power. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 12 (1), 24-49.
32. Koonce, L., 1992. Explanation and counterexplanation in audit analytical review. The Accounting Review 67 (1), 59-76.
33. Knapp, M.C., 1987. An empirical study of audit committee support for auditors involved in technical disputes with client management. The Accounting Review 62 (3), 578-588.
34. KPMG, 1999. Shaping the Audit Committee Agenda. KPMG, Montvale, NJ.
35. Levitt, A., 1998. The numbers game. Speech delivered at NYU Center for Law and Business, September.
36. Libby, R., Kinney Jr., W.R., 2000. Does mandated audit communication reduce opportunistic corrections to manage earnings to forecasts? The Accounting Review 75 (4), 383-404.
37. Lublin, J.S., MacDonald, E., 1998. Scandals signal laxity of audit panels. The Wall Street Journal (July 17), B1, B5.
38. McMullen, D.A., Raghunandan, K., 1996. Enhancing audit committee effectiveness. Journal of Accountancy 182 (8), 79-81.
39. National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), 2000. Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Audit Committees: A Practical Guide. National Association of Corporate Directors, Washington, DC.
40. Nelson, M., Elliott, J., Tarpley, R., 2002. Evidence from auditors about managers' and auditors' earnings-management decisions. The Accounting Review 77 (Supplement), 175-205.
41. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, San Diego CA, pp. 123-205.
42. Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section (POB), 1993. Special Report: Issues confronting the accounting profession. Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section, Stamford, CT.
43. Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section (POB), 2000. The Panel on Audit Effectiveness Report and Recommendations. Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section, Stamford, CT.
44. Rich, J.S., Solomon, I., Trotman, K., 1997. The audit review process: a characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (5), 481-505.
45. Salterio, S., Koonce, L., 1997. The persuasiveness of audit evidence: the case of accounting policy decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (6), 573-587.
46. Sarbanes, P., Oxley, M., 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. US Congress, Washington, DC.
47. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 1999. Sta. Accounting Bulletin no. 99, Materiality. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC.
48. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 2002. Proposed rule: disclosure in management's discussion and analysis about the application of critical accounting policies. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC.
49. Treadway Commission, 1987. Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting, Washington, DC.
50. Wolnizer, P.W., 1995. Are audit committees red herrings? Abacus 31, 45-66.
51. Wright, A., Wright, S., 1997. An examination of factors affecting the decision to waive audit adjustments. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance (Winter), 15-36.